Much has been written on North Korea and its infamous leader Kim Jong-un. He has proven to be an unstable, brutal and erratic dictator whose pension for control, power, and attention could be enough to push him over the nuclear weapon’s edge. The problem is a nuclear attack by North Korea, on anyone, would be a disastrous event that would involve more than just North Korea and their target, it would affect the whole region and drag much of the world into a conflict…literally, a global event.

Understanding this, how do we curb the North Korean leader’s ambitions? In what manner do we convince a young, inexperienced, power hungry, and closed-minded narcissist to stop? Do we encourage him, pamper him, or sanction him into submission? Or is it better to threaten him?

Well, we do have President Trump. A new face to geopolitics and handling rogue nations. Yet, Trump’s most recent rhetoric seems cartoonish in nature, much like we hear from other closed and oppressive societies…aka Iran, Venezuela, or Cuba…not a sophisticated U.S. Further, if you ask any seasoned diplomat they would say Trump’s rhetoric is downright dangerous…but is it?

Is tough rhetoric what Kim Jong-un needs? A language he understands? A threat that is straight forward and more importantly from an American president whose history of “what he says” is “what he does.” Maybe this is just what the doctor ordered? In other words, “fight fire with fire.”

And, more importantly, is there more to this tough rhetoric and is it really meant for someone else?

I want to start out with a warning.The following essay is a tough read. I go into depth using some reasoning and metaphysics to help establish my position on Climate Change (human-induced), its religious evolution and subsequent corruption of science. I spend some time using Aristotle’s genius to lay the ground work for the power of an idea. I felt it was important to delve into the subject philosophically due to science’s origins and my religious comparisons. Please tough it out…this Aristolean introduction helps greatly in preparing you for the disappointing truth in Climate Change.

In addition, as I have mentioned in previous blogs, I am an indifferent Catholic. The beliefs and faith I discuss are analogous and do not intend to question or offend the personal or religious beliefs of others. But, one thing I do not apologize for is my view that Climate Change has gotten religious, and as such, corrupted its scientific grounding.

So, here we go…

One of our greatest inventions is something you cannot see, hear, taste or for that matter, touch. It has billions of followers and has solved some of our greatest challenges. But it has also spawned unending conflict and cast misery among many. Yet this invention has taken us to the moon and is arguably the most profound creation that has ever blessed and cursed our planet.

This invention is an “idea” …and what makes it so compelling is humankind’s unwavering belief in it.

So what does this have to do with religion, Climate Change, and the corruption of science?

For some of you, it will mean little, but for many of you, it is the difference between choosing the truth and being told the truth.

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara was recently removed from his position by President Trump. Mr. Bharara’s removal as a federal prosecutor (the top federal prosecutor in the state) is part of a new administration’s political purge. The last three Administrations have similarly removed federal prosecutors from district courts, with Janet Reno (U.S. Attorney General for President Clinton) eliminating all 93 district attorney’s in one day.

What makes this one different is that Mr. Bharara did not traditionally step down or resign, he was fired. The purge of political appointees usually goes unnoticed, but a defiant Bharara brought attention to his plight…and more. His choice of stepping down v. firing is no small matter. Especially in a highly contemptuous relationship between the White House, Democrats, and mainstream media. And as expected, both were quick to condemn the firing.

But was their condemnation fair and did it address the real problem; Poltical appointees and Mr. Bharara’s sense or misunderstanding of “duty?”

President Trump’s firstNational Security Advisor(NSA) pick, retired Army LTG Mike Flynn, was a mistake. Flynn did not appear to have the skills, temperament or policy background to navigate or manage U.S. security actions, especially in such a heavily scrutinized political position. Flynn’s background is purely intelligence with little security or political savvy outside of the military. However, Trumps’ new pick, LTG H.R. McMasters, appears to possess a better qualifications and is considered within the military, an iconic visionary. A better strategist, very good on his feet and more than adept to provide credible and sound policy advice as well as effectively manage the National Security Council (NSC).

The new NSA’s intellectual curiosity, articulate skills, pragmatism, and insatiable appetite to challenge the status quo makes him a tremendous and non-controversial asset for the administration. Or does it?

Featured Posts

This is a redo of a previous blog I wrote about the security issues inside Afghanistan. I initially used personal accounts to paint a picture of the problems I witnessed during my military tour in 2005. However, with President Trump’s most recent speech laying out a potential shift in American Afghan policy, I felt compelled to […]